Core Competencies for the Information Professions and the Evolution of Skill Sets.

Abstract

ion is U1e second, and much more powerful, argument. Abstraction is a process by which U1e profession argues (and ultimately demonstrates) ti1at the abstract knowledge which underlies ti1e tools and service models in U1e profession's current domain are applicable in ti1e new one. A simple example of abstraction might be ti1e argument U1at classification ti1eoryion is a process by which U1e profession argues (and ultimately demonstrates) ti1at the abstract knowledge which underlies ti1e tools and service models in U1e profession's current domain are applicable in ti1e new one. A simple example of abstraction might be ti1e argument U1at classification ti1eory underlies many of ti1e tools we have developed, and Uwse theories have application to U1e development of new tools suit­ able to ti1e new domain. Thus, according to Abbott, professions use U1esc two meclla­ nisms (reduction and abstraction) to argue for ru1 appropriate niche and to develop new tools and service models which justify a move into new territory. Using Abbott's basic conclusions, ti1ese two mechanisms are ti1e weapons needed in ti1is profes­ sion's competition wiU1 the Pacl3ells, the Apples, and oti1ers. However, there is a problem, ru1d we believe ti1e problem is U1is: we can abstract all we wruH from our current set of tools and service models ru1d we can do reduction all we want ru1d we still will not win. We still cannot make that transition because of a third mechanism Abbott does not identify new knowledge. If one looks at the faculties of the schools of library and infonna­ tion science in U1e United States Uwt arc moving forward success­ fully in prepruing themselves to educate professionals for the emerging domain, U1ey are developing interdisciplinary facul­ ties. They are incorporating people with backgrounds in cogni­ tive science, conununications, and a host of other disciplines and fields of concern to the "infonnation problem." They are actively trying to wed new knowledge wiU1 the profession's extant knowledge base in order to hybridize a new professional who can function in the emerging domain. If U1e schools of library and infonnation science do their jobs well, it will be to educate professionals who can do the kind of abstracting necessary to create ti1e new tools and service models for a new environment ti1at is just around ti1e comer. If we are are not able to do that, the profession of librarianship is in deep, deep trouble. Dimensions of Practice The deriving of new skill sets from tl1e core competencies for an expanding or shifting professional domain tllrough tlle processes of reduction, abstraction and new knowledge acquisition will take place (if at all) along four dimensions of professional practice: The tool making dimension, The information management (or tool use) dimension, The agency dimension (we like to call it serv­ ice), and 1l1e management of information organizations dimension. ll1e ordering here is significant. Perhaps, while not necessarily denoting U1eir importance in daily practice, we believe tlle order reflects ti1e survival order for ti1e profession; i.e., tlle order of mastery for survival of the profession as it transitions to tlle new environment. Tool Making Dimension 1l1e tool making dimension tends to confuse people; tlley do not understand what is meant when we speak of librarians as tool makers. As a profession, we use tools and service models to solve the problems that ti1e profession bas chosen to address. For example, LCSH is a tool; tl1e Dewey Decimal system is a tool.6 Dewey was a librarian but he was also a tool maker. Practitioners at tl1e Library of Congress and in Europe were librarians and tool makers when tl1ey laid the conceptual foundations for LCSH and oti1er organizational schemes. In ti1is profession and in tl1e schools of library and information science, we have largely abdicated our role as tool makers. There was a great period of tool making in librarianship librarianship' s "golden age of tool making," if you willin tlle late 19tll and early 20Ul centuries. ll1en, afer the First World War, sometlling happened. Tile profession went on auto-pilot; it went to sleep and its practitioners became mere tool users. Tool making was someone else's problem now it's ti1e vendor's problem. As a result, we lost much of the power to enable tlle profession.7 An exrunple might help. In general, librarians tl1athave ventured out onto ti1e Internet witi1 Archie, Veronica, W AIS, World Wide Web ru1d ot11er access tools and please note, tools created by someone else have viewed ti1eir role in tl1e following sorts of tenns: 6 The phrase "tool maker" includes not only actual tools such as LCSl-l but also the service models developed to address the societal problem. 7 In general, special librarians may represent the only exception to this abdication. Unlike the public and academic libraries, the richly varied contexts of special library practice frequently required developing new designs. technologies and techniques in order to satisfy needs for nontraditional organizational schemes and service models. This stands in sharp contrast to the near rote application of existing tools such

分享

查看原文 本刊更多论文

信息专业的核心竞争力和技能组合的演变。

满足非传统组织方案和服务模型需求的技术和技术。这与现有工具(如<t5 lcl -1)的死记硬背的应用形成鲜明对比。杜威。以及公共图书馆和学术图书馆的LCC。然而，图书馆专业关系中的这些问题在图书馆情报学教育中所起的作用并不大。教育图书馆•第18卷，第39号作为抱怨U1e的原始性质的U1e工具和U1ey将如何不扩大到U1e的挑战网络化的全球信息;作为无辜的(也可能是受害的)用户，急切地等待别人(也许是pacell，也许是苹果，也许是IBM?)开发出可接受的信息检索工具。这个行业的生存(更不用说在新兴的信息世界中扮演重要的角色)将需要为新的环境找到适应性的解决方案，这个行业必须开始这样做，而这可能不是那么简单地重新唤醒它作为工具制造商在这个新领域中的角色的复兴。要做到这一点，它的从业者将不得不回到雅培的“抽象”，提炼我们现有的专业知识基础。因此，该知识库必须与来自U1e专业以外的新知识(例如，人的因素、教育心理学、计算机科学、认知科学)相结合，以便为新的环境创建新的工具和新的服务模型。虽然这种重新觉醒将需要在许多方面发展高技术背景，但如果要恢复工具制造功能，就必须追求这种发展，从而使工具制造专业能够进入新的利基并扩展旧的利基。信息管理!为了解决第二个维度，即信息管理(工具使用)维度，并了解专业人员可能在哪里开发新的技能集，并将其带入网络空间，我们需要回到阿特金森的评论(1993年，第201页)，即专业是关于“[s]选择，区分，参考，并以其他方式赋予个人信息单元特权。”我们在前面看到，用于执行web功能的旧机制之一是集合开发过程。我们将使用ut核心竞争力来探索信息管理维度。现在，我们都知道收藏品开发是什么，或者，至少我们认为我们知道它是什么。但是我们如何抽象出它的基础。为了把它带入网络空间?为了给出一个答案，让我们来散布一些谣言。前段时间有传言说哈佛法学院没有征收政策，有传言说如果有的话，哈佛会买下它。虽然很可能是一个神话，但它仍然是一个非常有启发性的故事，因为它表明了一个集合发展的连续体。我的《哈佛法》应该被放在这个连续体的一端，而另一端是图书馆，它在严重的经济限制下运作。当一个人从神秘的哈佛法(Harvard Law)走向在严重经济约束下运作的图书馆时，我们建议馆藏发展馆员参与一个建立观点文章的过程。换句话说，在远离哈佛法学院的连续统一体上，图书馆成为了图书馆管理员意见的表达，图书馆认为最好的图书馆在哪里以及如何得到它。现在，我们认为“图书馆是观点文章”是一件好事。事实上。，我们相信，在展现在我们面前的新信息宇宙中，我们的专业能力将定义馆藏的发展。需要问的问题是，我们如何将我们的意见片段的结构带入一个我们不必像过去那样收集信息容器的世界?我们如何在网络空间中进行收集发展?作为图书管理员，我们将根据我们所指向的内容构建网络信息的意见片段。举个例子，图书馆员们在前面建立了Mosaic客户端、服务器和主页，他们不仅是在一个新的环境中写作，他们还在进行馆藏开发，他们正在开发一种新的书目形式。而且，我们正在使用新工具以新方式做bot1。他们正在从事一种非常健康的自适应行为模式，这种行为植根于互联网行业的核心竞争力:决定在所有将充斥互联网网络的互联网垃圾中什么是有用的，并指出它正在构建人们可能称之为信息架构的东西。因此，馆藏开发将变得更像创作和出版，图书馆员将在全球互联网和图书馆自己的服务器上构建资源的信息体系结构。总的来说，我们的结果将是重叠的意见网——意见网非常类似于传统的图书馆，但又与之形成鲜明的对比。因此，在新兴市场环境中，即使是收藏发展也有直接的必然结果。 我们潜力的可能性

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。